An action for relief not provided for in sections 2305.04 to 2305.131 and section 1304.35 of the Revised Code shall be brought within ten years after the cause thereof accrued. This section does not apply to an action on a judgment rendered in another state or territory.
Browne v. Artex Oil Co. (Slip Opinion), 2019 Ohio 4809 (Ohio 2019). · cites it 2דR.C. 2305.14 creates a catchall limitations period of ten years for those causes of action that do not fall within any of the types of claims specified in the other statutes.”
Byers DiPaola Castle, L.L.C. v. Portage Cty. Commrs., 2015 Ohio 3089 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 5דInstead of the 10-year time period set forth under R.C. 2305.14, as cited by the trial court, appellant maintains the 15-year period set forth under former R.”
Schlabach v. Kondik, 2017 Ohio 8016 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 3דAs a result, the trial court reasoned Schlabach's claim was to recover personal property interests, governed by the ten-year statute of limitations in R.C. 2305.14. The trial court rejected Schlabach's argument that he retained something greater than the right to royalties in…”
Biggins v. Garvey, 630 N.E.2d 44 (Ohio Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 3ד*606 In the fifth cross-assignment of error, appellees contend that the court erred in ruling that the appropriate statute of limitations in this action was the four-year limitation provided in R.”
Lawyers Coop. Publ'g Co. v. Muething, 603 N.E.2d 969 (Ohio 1992). “09(D), which prescribes a four-year period, or R.C. 2305.14, which prescribes a ten-year period.”
Carter v. Am. Aggregates Corp., 611 N.E.2d 512 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 3דThe plaintiffs contend that Wood is incorrect and that the proper limitation is the ten-year limitation of R.C. 2305.14. In addition, plaintiffs rely upon R.”
Claxton v. Mains, 514 N.E.2d 427 (Ohio Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 3דPlaintiff, Jack Claxton, appeals a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County holding that plaintiff’s complaint was barred by the ten-year statute of limitations provided in R.C. 2305.14. Plaintiffs complaint alleged that, on August 21,1972, he and defendants…”
Bank of Am., N.A. v. Darkadakis, 2016 Ohio 7694 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2ד{¶80} “R.C. 2305.14 provides that actions not specifically limited in any provision of the Code must be brought within ten years after the cause accrued.”
Westfield Ins. v. Huls Am., Inc., 714 N.E.2d 934 (Ohio Ct. App. 1998). “As mentioned above, this court finds that appellants’ claims are barred whether the TROCAL roof is deemed a product or a fixture, and a determination of the status of the TROCAL roof as product or fixture is unnecessary.”
Cohen v. Dulay, 2017 Ohio 6973 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “{¶ 20} Cohen also alleges on appeal that he is entitled to an equitable accounting "on account of the Board Members' breach of their fiduciary duty beginning in 2006 and continuing through 2009 up to the date of their resignation.”
Stengel v. City of Columbus, 600 N.E.2d 248 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2ד07, the trial court also considered the lengthier statutory period set forth in R.C. 2305.14, which provides: “An action for relief not provided for in sections 2305.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.